Election Reflections-- Blue Dogs, Schumer, Texas, Florida... You Want To Know What Went Wrong?

Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Joe Cunningham (SC) were elected to the House in the 2018 anti-red wave-- just when Blue Dog chairwoman Kyrsten Sinema graduated to the Senate. Sinema was the worst Democrat in Congress-- by far. She voted against anything and everything that smacked of progressivism. She voted with the GOP on progressive roll calls around 75% of the time. Now she's the worst Democrat in the Senate, although we'll soon see if Frackenlooper gives her a run for her money.

Back in the House, Brindisi and Cunningham spent the last two years see-sawing back and forth for the #1 and #2 worst Dems. Both are virulent Blue Dogs with ghastly voting records that could only be analyzed in one way: Republican. At the moment, Cunningham's record is slightly worse-- 76.54% against progressive initiatives, while Brindisi "only" voted against progressivism 75.31%. None the less, Pelosi and Bustos decided to waste $4 million trying to save Cunningham and $5.5 million trying to save Brindisi. Two of the GOP's best friends inside the Democratic caucus-- but especially Brindisi-- spent their time whining about how if anything progressive was brought to the floor for a vote it would doom their reelections.

Cunningham was defeated by Republican Nancy Mace (having out-spent her by $2 million) 216,042 (50.6%) to 210,627 (49.4%). It looked like Brindisi would be joining him in the losers' column-- and he still may-- but... yesterday Syracuse.com reported that Brindisi has surged back into contention, winning the absentee count 73-27% (25,998-7,787)... Brindisi has now cut Tenney’s lead to 10,294 votes, down from 28,422 votes on Election Day. There are at least 20,000 ballots remaining to be counted across the district. Brindisi will have to win at least 77% of those ballots to overtake Tenney." That's a steep hill to climb but it isn't impossible that Congress will be stuck with Brindisi and his whining for two more years.

Let's flip back to the Senate for a minute-- although the DCCC operates exactly like to DSCC-- and take a look at a post from July by Andrew Perez, with the benefit of hindsight-- Senate Democrats’ Machine Spent $15 Million To Destroy Progressive Primary Candidates. Short version: "The Democratic establishment has successfully blocked progressive Senate candidates in primaries, with the help of labor unions, Wall Street tycoons and corporate interests."

Now that the Schumer and the DSCC have managed to confound every pollster and lose the Senate again, it's worth looking at how they undermined every single progressive who tried to run-- spending $15 million in the process during the primaries. They hate progressives and fear them more than Republicans, who they have much more in common with.

While Schumer's DSCC hand-puppet, Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) promised last year that the DSCC would support progressive incumbent Ed Markey if he faced a primary challenger, they reneged entirely when he was challenged by a far less progressive Rep. Joe Kennedy III. Although a SuperPAC set up by Kennedy, the New Leadership PAC, spent $4,126,114 bolstering him, neither the DSCC nor Schumer's slimy Senate Majority PAC, spent a nickel helping Markey. Instead, they spent millions helping very right-wing Democrats like Frackenlooper to defeat progressive former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. "In the final weeks of the race," wrote Perez, "SMP spent $1 million to boost Hickenlooper, after he spent his failed presidential campaign attacking key tenets of progressives’ legislative agenda, including Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. At the time of the cash infusion, Hickenlooper was losing ground in the polls and engulfed in scandals: He had just been fined by Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission for violating state ethics law as governor, the local CBS station uncovered evidence of his gubernatorial office raking in cash from oil companies, and a video circulated showed Hickenlooper comparing his job as a politician to a slave on a slave ship, being whipped by a scheduler."

The Schumer-controled SMP spent $228,490,266, "pooling cash from both organized labor and business titans to promote corporate-aligned candidates over more progressive primary challengers. Working for Working Americans, a super PAC funded by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, has donated $5 million. The Laborers' International Union of North America’s super PAC has given $1.5 million. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’s political action committee has chipped in $1.3 million. SMP has received also big donations from groups affiliated with labor unions like the Service Employees International Union ($1 million), the National Association of Letter Carriers ($750,000), and Communications Workers of America ($500,000). Overall, the top donor to SMP so far this cycle has been Democracy PAC-- a super PAC that’s bankrolled by billionaire George Soros and the Fund for Policy Reform, a nonprofit funded by Soros. Democracy PAC has contributed $8.5 million to SMP. Other donors from the financial industry include: Renaissance Technologies founder and billionaire Jim Simons and his wife Deborah ($5.5 million) and billionaire D. E. Shaw & Co. founder David Shaw ($1 million)."

Some major donors have financial stakes in current and future legislation.

For instance: SMP received a $1 million donation from billionaire Jonathan Gray, an executive at Blackstone, which owns the hospital staffing chain, TeamHealth. SMP also received $2 million from the Greater New York Hospital Association.

In late 2019, Schumer helped stall Senate legislation that would have kept patients from receiving “surprise medical bills,” the hefty charges that occur when they visit hospitals that are in their insurance network but are unknowingly treated by providers who are considered out-of-network.

SMP is affiliated with Majority Forward, a dark money group focused on attacking Republican Senate candidates. Majority Forward received $450,000 in 2018 from pharmacy giant CVS Health-- which also owns health insurer Aetna. The group also received $300,000 from the American Health Care Association (AHCA), a trade association that represents the nursing home industry.

The Democratic primary candidates backed by the DSCC have expressed reservations about Medicare for All, arguing they believe people should be allowed to keep their private health insurance if they want it. Many of the DSCC’s favored candidates do support creating a public health insurance option.

Meanwhile, the Real Estate Roundtable, a trade group for real estate investors, donated $50,000 to Majority Forward. Schumer and Senate Democrats recently helped Republicans unanimously pass pandemic relief legislation that included a special, little-noticed provision that amounted to $170 billion worth of new tax breaks for wealthy real estate investors.

In addition to the Colorado race, SMP has waded into at least three other Senate primaries this year.

In North Carolina, SMP funded Carolina Blue, a super PAC that spent $4.5 million to help veteran and former state senator Cal Cunningham win the primary in March. Cunningham handily defeated his chief opponent, state senator Erica Smith, who was running to his left...

In Iowa, SMP spent nearly $7 million to promote real estate developer Theresa Greenfield. She easily bested her two primary opponents, including progressive Kimberly Graham, who campaigned in support of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

SMP has already spent more than $2 million in Maine, including nearly $500,000 to promote House Speaker Sara Gideon in the Democratic primary. Some of the group’s advertising against Republican Senator Susan Collins was also designed to boost Gideon.

The final polls and final predictions showed Sara Gideon, Theresa Greenfield and Cal Cunningham beating, respectively, Collins, Ernst and Tillis. Instead the 3 Republicans are returning to the Senate. Gideon's share of the vote was a pathetic 42.7%, Greenfield's was 45.2% and Tillis' was 47.0%. The DSCC and Schumer's PAC spent ungodly amounts, as did the Democratic candidates.

In North Carolina, Cunningham raised $46,795,495 to Tillis' $21,474,728. The DSCC spent $24,542,003 and Schumer's PAC spent $35,838,924.

In Maine, Gideon raised $68,577,474 to Collins' $26,511,555. The DSCC spent $4,667,250 and Schumer's PAC spent $27,909,459.

In Iowa, Greenfield raised $47,004,937 to Ernst's $23,536,707. The DSCC spent $27,899,050 and Schumer's PAC spent $41,225,046.

Both the DSCC and the DCCC have decided to blame progressives for their cataclysmic losses, even though every single incumbent who lost was a conservative and every single progressive-- including progressives in tough districts like Matt Cartwright, Dan Kildee, Andy Levin, Peter DeFazio and Jahana Hayes-- won.

Last week Ryan Grimm asked progressive challenger Mike Siegel this question: "Do you have to run as a kind of centrist or moderate in some of these districts, or can a progressive message win in a swing district in Texas?" Mike began by comparing his race to that of another re-match Texan, Sri Kulkarni (who had an open seat this time). Kulkarni is an avowed conservative, a corporate Democrat and careerist endorsed by both the Blue Dogs and New Dems. He raised $4,863,231 compared to Troy Nehls' (R) $1,532,299 and the DCCC and Pelosi's PAC spent $7.3 million bolstering him. He lost 209,735 (51.6%) to 181,318 (44.6%). Mike Siegel is a Squad-grade progressive who raised $2,332,415 compared to Michael McCaul's $3,515,771 (as of Oct. 14). The DCCC, which preferred a conservative Democrat run, spent $270 on Mike's race and Pelosi's PAC spent zero. Yes, you read that right-- $270. McCaul was reelected 215,896 (52.5%) to 186,350 (46.3%). Had the DCCC spent part of the $7.3 million they wasted on Sri, would Mike have won? We'll never know, will we?

In answer to Grim's question, Mike pointed out that being conservative didn't help Kulkarni and even though he campaigned loudly on Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and racial justice, Mike outperformed him by every possible metric.

[W]hat I would have liked to have tested is if we had an entire progressive ticket. You know, it could be that the most consequential decisions about my campaign were made March 3, Super Tuesday, when we decided that Bernie Sanders wasn’t gonna be the presidential nominee and, in Texas, we decided that Christina Tzintzún Ramirez wasn’t going to be our Senate nominee.

So with my analysis that I’m doing now with our team and many others in Texas is what would it take to really get out more poor voters? I mean, I’m talking about poor people. Like, when you canvass in rural Texas, in a town like Eagle Lake, or Brenham, in the summer, you meet people who are in these rundown, double-wide kind of houses, basically falling apart at the seams-- people who have to survive three months of 100-degree weather with no air conditioning at all, people who have very marginal employment. What’s it going to take to get those folks to care about an election? You know, whether you’re talking about black folks and Latinx voters in a city, or poor rural voters-- black, Latino, and white-- what’s it gonna take for them to really care about an election?

And to me, Bernie Sanders would have helped us make that populous case. You know, Texas has this tradition of populism; it goes back 100 years or more. But like, if we were really talking about farm policy, if we were really talking about water policy, if we were talking about rural jobs programs, things that really affect their lives. I mean, as a congressional candidate, I was talking about these things, but it’s hard to really break through.

Same thing with Christina. You know, statewide in Texas, we’re not going to flip Texas if we don’t win the RGV, the Rio Grande Valley. And, you know, if you haven’t been to Texas, you might not realize there are communities along the border called colonias, where they don’t even have running water and municipal sewage in some of these developments. I mean, these are like, you know, sometimes undocumented residents, sometimes U.S. citizens who are living in abject poverty. What’s it gonna take to get those folks to care? And it’s not some slick TV ads, it’s not a poll-tested message. Even for me, I got some DCCC support, and some of my messaging was about prescription drug prices and protecting pre-existing conditions. But I feel like that’s too nuanced for these folks. I mean, it has to be more direct.

You know, this, this might be a little off-topic, but one of the things I’m thinking about is, think about the movements in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez or Bolivia under Evo Morales. Evo Morales is supported by the poorest indigenous farmers from the high plains of Bolivia. Those people are engaged in the electoral process. In this country, poor people are not engaged in the electoral process.

And so, for me, on a gerrymandered map, I don’t know if I could have gotten more than 210,000 votes, like McCaul got, unless we were really doing organizing with poor people. And I think that’s a longer-term investment. That’s where it’s this question, these people who gave me $2800, when I called them and spoke to them for a minute, would they give me $1,000 if I was gonna say: We’re going to invest in a five-year project to do deep organizing these communities? Is the donor class willing to invest in changing the fundamental conditions in areas like mine that would really enable progressive change in the long term?

...[O]ne of the things I’ve been preaching on the campaign trail, you know, and I got to do some events with Bernie and he absolutely loved it-- you know, this is our New Deal moment, American history: crumbling U.S. infrastructure, massive wealth inequality, unemployment-- major crises we need to confront. In the 30s it was fascism rising in Western Europe; now, it’s climate change.

And how did we enact a New Deal in this country? You know, a 15-year program, the Works Progress Administration, massively investing in infrastructure, putting people to work in all sorts of jobs. It was FDR, when he ran for president the first time, talking about the New Deal every chance he gets: We’re gonna give you a New Deal. Whatever the question was-- economic policy, jobs, health care, you name it, we’re gonna give you a New Deal.

Imagine we had a candidate for president who for 10-12 months is talking nonstop about fundamental economic change. That’s what it takes. And that’s where the Democratic establishment, which to some extent supported me, although not as strongly as they could have, they’re not talking about that, because we’re too invested in conservative donors who don’t want us to say that.

And so we’re caught in between. You know, half the Democratic Party is still taking the corporate PAC money, moderating the message, saying: OK, we’re only going to talk about this extremely narrow issue, you know, protecting pre-existing conditions or negotiating prescription drug prices downwards, whereas like people don’t have AC and it’s 100 degrees every day, they don’t have gas in the car, they’re making $10 an hour and getting 20 hours a week. I mean, they are struggling to survive. They’re completely cynical about democracy as something that’s even real in the world. And we’re not speaking clearly to them about why it matters to vote.

Today, the Washington Post reported that "The parts of America that have seen strong job, population and economic growth in the past four years voted for Joe Biden, economic researchers found. In contrast, President Trump garnered his highest vote shares in counties that had some of the most sluggish job, population and economic growth during his term. Trump fared well among voters who said the economy was their top concern, and he even won votes in places that didn’t fare particularly well under his presidency. This is perhaps a continuation of the 2016 election, when Trump won a huge share of places that had struggled under President Barack Obama. Democrats tended to view the 2020 election more as a referendum on Trump, especially his response to the pandemic." It's worth hitting that Intercept link above and reading Ryan's whole interview with Siegel. But now I want to leave you with a quirky but apocryphal story by Richard Cooke in yesterday's Daily Beast: I Covered Congressional Races in Florida in 2018, and Boy Do I Know Why Trump Won the State in 2020. "One party’s aides were courteous and organized," he wrote. "The other’s could barely tell me when the candidate was speaking next. Wanna take a guess?" He covered FL-26 and FL-27 in 2018, when Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and Donna Shalala both flipped those very blue (but Republican-held) districts blue. This year, both flipped back to red.

Situated in and near Miami, these districts make up some of the most volatile and interesting political territory in the United States. FL-27 had voted heavily for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but the House seat had been held by a socially liberal Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for 30 years. Ros-Lehtinen was retiring, and on paper the district seemed a natural Dem pick-up. The districts also overlapped with Miami-Dade, the most populous county in Florida, whose turnout would be critical in deciding a narrow gubernatorial race.

Instead of requesting interviews, I decided to see the candidates like an undecided voter would, joining the audience for stump speeches and campaign events. This seemed standard, almost old-fashioned reporting. It never occurred to me that it would be hard, let alone so hard that I’d need to extend my stay in Miami. By leaving time, I felt not like an undecided voter, but like a private detective. Finding a schedule of Republican campaign events took 15 minutes. With Democrats, this process took five days.

...Perhaps this information was at one of the other offices. Volunteers tried to be helpful. One suggested a website might have the information, and when pressed, offered unsarcastically that I “try Google.” Another showed me an event dated two weeks prior. Finally, with fanfare, someone produced a number for another campaign office. They could put me in touch with the right person. I stepped outside and dialed. I had called the switchboard for the City of Miami Gardens, Florida.

Irritation was turning into intrigue, and while the next few days were mileage and frustration-heavy, they were in some ways a reporter’s dream. The factional fighting between Miami-Dade Democrats, Florida Democrats, Senate campaign offices and the national party was flagrant. One of the few times I saw the operation energized was when I mentioned the Miami-Dade Democrats to a staffer for and she rolled her eyes. I heard more than one volunteer try to remember the names on the ballot and fail. I was left unsupervised in campaign offices, in prime eavesdropping real estate, though this was just a bonus: campaigners were ready to vent their frustrations, and I opened my confessional.

By comparison, the Republicans I encountered were courteous, organized, and dedicated. I heard a speech by the GOP challenger for FL-27, Maria Salazar, and afterwards her apparatchiks handed me business cards. At voting locations drowned in GOP paraphernalia, campaign staff showed me detailed spreadsheets, tallying how early turn-out numbers tracked with their booth-by-booth strategy. They asked if I needed anything. The competition dynamic was starting to remind me of 1980s comedy movie: a ruthless, well-heeled team up against a band of plucky misfits.

My grail quest became no easier. At one field location, I arrived just before the advertised opening time and waited by myself for hours before leaving empty-handed. Finding the number for one press secretary took phone calls to 22 different people, most of whom didn’t know who he was. Several times I was told that a particular volunteer was important and “knew everything.” Tracked down at a polling booth, he turned out to be a young backpacker, freshly arrived from Spain, who knew as little as anyone else. Later, I realized the source of this special status: he was one of the few people on the ground who could speak Spanish. Donna Shalala herself (i.e. the candidate) could not.

Following a hot tip about a possible press contact, I turned up at another campaign office with a different strategy: I would refuse to leave. After the traditional greeting-- bewilderment, being offered a chair within earshot of indiscrete conversations-- there was a short conclave. I could speak with Ben. Ben and I sat facing each other, in the middle of an open-plan office. By this time I had become a kind of connoisseur of incompetence, and I sensed that Ben was good at something, but he had not dealt with a reporter before. “Can I ask what your role with the campaign is?” Ben was a policy adviser. He had no idea if his candidate had any events that day, and no idea why he was speaking with me.

When the comms person did come in (this was treated as a special occasion), our conversation had an informality that was almost charming. I explained my difficulty with the Democratic campaigns, and the contrast with Republicans. “They’re a lot more organized than us!” she said, and I had to laugh. They sure were! Here at last was some kind of schedule, but as we stepped through it, something was missing. Through exhaustive internet searches, I had found a digital ticketing website offering a Q&A event featuring Donna Shalala. Why wasn’t it on the schedule? “Ohhh, that’s cancelled.” Perhaps, she said, they could line up an interview instead? I explained that I had been trying to see the election from the perspective of a voter, not a reporter, and how information was freely available from Republicans and almost non-existent from Democrats. Catching my drift, she started to flush.

The call came through later, when I was in a Haitian-owned coin laundry. A DNC flack in Washington, D.C. had heard I was making trouble, planning some kind of “Dems in disarray” story, and as I scribbled notes on top of an industrial dryer, I picked up the story that had been relayed to him, as much from his tone as his words. A foreign correspondent had arrived in Miami expecting VIP treatment, then got miffed when the red carpet wasn’t rolled out. Smearing the ground game would be revenge for a bruised ego. “Money at a national level has gone into these seats,” he assured me.

Walking him through what I’d seen-- and hadn’t seen-- only made him angry. “We’re going to win both of those seats,” he said, berating my ignorance. It was a strange reaction. By then I probably had as clear a snapshot of the election in Miami as anyone. Wasn’t that information useful? Potentially important, even? Instead, someone hundreds of miles away was blithely junking this eye-witness evidence in favor of obnoxious confidence. “You’ll see,” he insisted, “when we win FL-26 and FL-27 on election night, I’ll message you.” And they did, and he did.

In my reply, I pointed out that Andrew Gillum, the Democratic favorite to become Florida’s governor, had lost by a narrow margin, and that poor turnout in Miami-Dade was the culprit. And perhaps you can imagine my lack of surprise two years later, when FL-26 and FL-27 both fell to GOP challengers, one of them Maria Salazar. On the presidential ballot, Clinton’s 30-point lead in Miami-Dade shrunk to a 7-point margin for Biden.

In a piece titled What the Hell Happened to Democrats in Miami-Dade?, Rolling Stone observed ruefully that “Miami-Dade is considered safe—until election night, when suddenly it’s not,” and quoted Maria Elena Lopez, first vice-chair of the Miami-Dade Democrats.

Lopez lamented how the Democratic National Convention did not talk to, fund, or advise the local parties. “We don’t get any feedback from the DNC,” she said. “They don’t come to us and say, ‘Hey, what is the messaging that would work in your community? Where are we weak?’ [The party] doesn’t do that, at all. We are on our own.”

“Unfortunately, this is not the first time that we’ve seen this,” she said. It was not the first time I had seen it either.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powll raised $6,178,239 compared to Carlos Gimenez's $1,946,504. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC spent about $6 million trying to save her. She lost the blue D+6 seat 177,223 (51.7%) to 165,407. Donna Shalala (the one who speaks no Spanish in a 71.7% Latino district) raised around the same $3,000,000 that her opponent, Maria Salazar (from 2018) spent. Shalala was so out of touch with her own constituents that she didn't even request help from the DCCC. In fact, she gave them money! She lost 176,114 (51.3%) to 166,705 (48.6%).

Neoliberalism Is Not Your Friend-- But What Can You Do About It?

 

When it comes to discussing the dangers of neoliberalism to the Democratic Party, Adolph Reed is amazing. (Politico should have asked him to interview neoliberal Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) instead of Tim Alberta.) Look, I hate and avoid zoom, but please watch this enlightening video of Katie Halper's show above (or you may never understand what "McWokeyism" is). "A famous organizer," Reed said in reference to Jane McAlevey (also on the show), "once made a distinction between mobilizing, which is going to your standing constituency and getting them to do stuff, and organizing, which is building a constituency that you don't have." Do you think anyone at the DCCC has ever had a thought like that cross their mind? Or is it always just about raising money? I hope you're been reading DWT enough to know the answer to that already. And that the Democrats who lost their races-- both incumbents and challengers-- raised and spent far more-- in some cases two, three and four times more-- than the Republicans who beat them.

Just focusing in on Blue Dog losers from the class of 2018, defeated after one Republican-lite term:

• Joe Cunningham (SC) raised $6,278,942 and was defeated by Nancy Mace who raised $4,891,696.
• Xochitl Torres Small (NM) raised $7,509,987 and was defeated by Yvette Herrell who raised $2,498,130.
• Max Rose (NY) raised $8,350,467 and was defeated by Nicole Malliotakis who raised $3,052,007.
• Anthony Brindisi (NY) raised $5,359,636 and appears to have been defeated by psychopath Claudia Tenney who raised $2,053,931.
• Kendra Horn (OK) raised $5,465,349 and was defeated by Stephanie Bice, who raised $3,089,972.
• Ben McAdams (UT) raised $5,137,258 and appears to have been defeated by Burgess Owens, who raised $4,021,248.

Remember, in theory, every congressional district-- Montana has more and is about to be split into 2 districts-- has the same number of voters. But they don't really. Some districts have a culture oof participation and are filled with civic-minded citizens who make a point of voting. Other districts have really small turn-outs. Although ballots are still being counted, only 15 candidates for Congress (in contested races) had over 300,000 votes:

• Barbara Lee (D-CA-13)- 327,278
• Diane DeGette (D-CO-01)- 331,453
• Joe Neguse (D-CO-02)- 316,916
• Neal Dunn (R-FL-02)- 303,879
• John Rutherford (R-FL-04)- 308,447
• Daniel Webster (R-FL-11)- 316,958
• Nikema Williams (D-GA-05)- 301,847
• Matt Rosendale (R-MT-AL)- 335,214
• Deborah Ross (D-NC-02)- 310,979
• David Price (D-NC-04)- 329,679
• Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-04) 342,458
• Dusty Johnson (R-SD-AL)- 321,984
• Don Beyer (D-VA-08)- 301,454
• Pramila Jayapal (D-WA-07)- 386,321
• Mark Pocan (D-WI-02)- 318,492

Who had the most votes of anyone standing for a congressional seat anywhere in America this cycle? Pramila Jayapal, who didn't even have a series opponent, is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and very much one of Congress' top organizers. That's her background, something she brought with her to the Washington state legislature, honed there and then brought it to Congress. She once asked me if I knew which members of Congress run anything other than a fundraising effort on their campaign side. Jamie Raskin sort of does, although not the way Pramila goes about it. Her campaign efforts on that front are mammoth and should be studied closely and emulated by the DCCC. The idea of her replacing Pelosi as Speaker is mind-boggling but-- with the power of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the New Dems and Blue Dogs)-- almost unimaginable.

This morning, Pramila told me that from the minute she got into Congress 4 years ago, "I was committed to running a year-round organizing effort through my campaign. What does that mean? It means instead of just having a fundraiser (or many of them) on the campaign side, I hired an organizer-- and depending on the time of year, several. We kept our thousands of volunteers engaged, not just on our race but on critical issues in the country, on ballot initiatives and on other critical races. I believe that is a big part of why we have such huge turnout here in the district-- because people stay engaged, they see me fighting for them all the time, and they have come to believe they can make a difference through their votes and their volunteering. That’s how we turned out the largest crowd for our healthcare rally in early 2017 when Republicans were gutting healthcare. Our volunteers played an important part in turnout for statewide ballot initiative on climate change and police accountability. They worked on Stacey Abrams' race in Georgia and on other swing district races across the country, like Katie Porter’s. And this year, in just 6 weeks, we trained over 600 volunteers who made over 140,000 phone calls into Pennsylvania and here in Washington state to turn out voters for Biden-Harris and other progressive candidates. When people donate to my campaign, they don’t just donate to keeping me in office-- they donate to the organizing we do all year to build leadership, to keep people engaged and to help drive the movement for progressive policies and candidates across the country."  

Pramila and AOC by Nancy Ohanian

Uncalled House Races-- Just A Dozen To Go

 

The latest election tallies show that Joe Biden is leading President Trump by 5,060,175 votes. That is a larger number than the margin between President Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012. In the 2012 election, Obama had 4,982,296 more votes than Romney.

This morning's election counties have Trump losing by 5,060,175 votes and that number will keep growing as more votes are counted in New York and California. At the moment, it stands like this:

• President-elect Joe Biden- 76,997,481 (50.8%)-- 290 electoral votes
• Señor Donald J. Trumpanzee- 71,926,263 (47.5%)- 214 electoral votes

There were a dozen actual swing states and 99% of the votes are counted in each one. Biden won 7 and Trump won 5:

This morning the race in Los Angeles for CA-34 was called for Jimmy Gomez, a garden variety progressive politician, who was in a D vs D fight with a super-progressive activist, David Kim. That leaves just an even dozen uncalled House races nationally, 3 more in California, 1 in Illinois, 1 in Iowa and 7 on New York.

The other California races are all for seats that were flipped from red to blue in 2018 and each pits a Republican against an uninspiring, pointless New Dem.

CA-21 includes all of Kings County and parts of Fresno, Kern and Tulare. It is 75% Hispanic and the PVI is D+5. In 2016, Hillary beat Trump there 55.2% to 39.7% and in 2018 TJ Cox ousted David Valadao by 862 votes-- 57,239 (50.4%) to 56,377 (49.6%). Cox has been a shitty Congress, not as shitty as Valadao, but utterly worthless. Valadao challenged him to a rematch and, with 91% of the vote counted, is now leading 72,350 (51.4%) to 68,324 (48.6%). Cox raised $4,798,088 to Valadao's $3,721,619. The DCCC spent $3,704,254 and Pelosi's House Majority PAC spent $3,218,656, about the same thing the Republican committees spent trying to help Valadao.

CA-25 is the Santa Clarita Valley/Antelope Valley/Simi Valley district that Katie Hill flipped in 2018 and then resigned from in a sex scandal. Mike Garcia beat pointless conservative Democrat Christy Smith in the special election on March 3-- 95,667 (54.9%) to 78,721 (45.1%). That was despite massive DCCC spending on Smith's behalf in a district with a Democratic registration advantage where the PVI is even but where Hillary beat Trump by 7 points. In 2018, Hill beat the Republican incumbent, Steve Knight, 133,209 (54.4%) to 111,813 (45.6%). With 99% of the vote counted, Garcia and Smith have been seesawing back and forth, with him currently leading her by 159 votes-- 165,178 (50.0%) to 165,019 (50.1%). Neither is fit to be in Congress.

Worst of the 3 terrible Democratic candidates in the uncalled California races is Gil Cisneros, the lottery winner who bought an Orange County/L.A./San Bernardino open seat in 2018 with $9,252,762 of his lottery winnings. He campaigned as a fake progressive and, predictably, joined the New Dems when he got to Congress and ran up a voting record rated "F" by ProgressivePunch. He's a waste of a seat and his 126,002 (51.6%) to 118,391 (48.4%) 2018 win over Republican Young Kim is-- with 99% of the vote counted-- not looking good. She leads him 167,564 (50.6%) to 163,396 (49.4%). Refusing to spend much of his own money again (just $370,887), he was out-raised by her $5,319,367 to $3,779,013. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC put in another $2.6 million but it doesn't seem to have helped combat Democratic lethargy for another useless Republican-lite candidate with no accomplishments.

The uncalled race in Illinois is for the R+5 district northwest of Chicago, where Lauren Underwood ousted Randy Hultgren in 2018-- 156,035 (52.5%) to 141,164 (47.5%), winning in all 7 counties. Having made some progressive noises in 2018, she quickly ran up an "F" voting record (ProgressivePunch). Although Obama won the district in 2008, Hillary lost to Trump by 4 points. Right now with 99% of the votes counted, Underwood is narrowly leading right-wing fanatic and perennial self-funder Jim Oberweis, 198,017 (50.4%) to 194,588 (49.6%). Oberweis kicked in $1,208,179 from his personal fortune, but she out-raised him $7,099,198 to $2,515,192. The DCCC considered her safe and didn't spend in the district.

The Iowa race, in the southeast quadrant of the state (IA-02) is open because Democrat Dave Loebsack decided to retire. The Democrats ran Rita Hart and the Republican candidate is Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the D+1 district that re-elected Loebsack by 12 points in 2018, two years after giving Trump a 4 points win. (Obama took in by 13 points in 2012.) This is another race that is see-sawing back and forth. Right now, with 89% of the votes counted, Miller-Meeks leads 196,860 (50.0%) to 196,812 (50.0%)-- just 48 votes! Right now, this is the closest congressional race in the country. Hart out-raised Miller-Meeks $3,631,135 to $1,518,295 and the DCCC and Pelosi's PAC kicked in about $6.5 million, about the same as the GOP committees.

And that brings us to New York, where there are 7 uncalled races. Trump won both Long Island counties again. The Democrats nominated a conservative Blue Dog, Jackie Gordon. to run for Peter King's open seat on the South Shore. Only 78% of the vote has been counted but she is losing to Republican Andrew Garbarino, 157,482 (57.8%) to 112,584 (41.3%), not a gap she looks likely to close enough to win. On the North Shore New Dem Tom Suozzi looks like he's in trouble behind George Santos-- 137,938 (50.5%) to 133,765 (49.0%)-- but will likely win substantially with 28% of ballots (mostly blue mail in votes) uncounted.

The red-leaning Trump strongholds in Staten Island and south Brooklyn are delivering for the GOP and Democrats have been wiped out there. With 85% of the votes counted Blue Dog Max Rose-- who campaigned against his own party and is not that dissimilar to a stinking pile of shit-- is losing to Republican Nicole Malliotakis, 136,383 (57.9%) to 99,224 (42.1%). The PVI is R+3 and Rose has been one of the worst Democrats in the House and clearly doesn't deserve to be reelected, despite having outraised Malliotakis $8,350,467 to $3,052,007. The DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC wasted over $9 million on this race.

Although neither are is called yet, Sean Patrick Maloney and Antonio Delgado (NY-18 and 19) both lead their Republican opponents, Maloney 135,819 (51.0%) to 127,918 (48.1%)and Delgado 141,993 (50.3%) to 134,602 (47.6%), with a Libertarian shaving 1.2% of the vote off the Republican's total. About 80% is in on each candidate and, like Suozzi both these New Dems are likely going back to the House. Maloney has already announced he wants to run for the DCCC chair. I doubt he could be as bad as Cheri Bustos, but he'd be very close if he manages to win (unlikely).

The most exciting races are further north, NY-22 and NY-24. In NY-22 Anthony Brindisi-- the worst Blue Dog in the House, and one who many of his colleagues are actually hoping loses-- is in a rematch with ex-Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, She's a psychotic Trumpster so this is a race without a lesser evil. With 80% counted she's leading 139,926 (54.4%) to 111,539 (43.4%) in an R+6 district. It's hard to imagine Brindisi winning. Good riddance!

NY-24 (Syracuse and environs) is a D+3 district where progressive Dana Balter is working to oust mainstream Republican John Katko. 78% is counted and he leads her 155,830 (58.5%) to 110,728 (37.8%) in a rematch from 2018. Obama won the district by 16 points in 2012 and Hillary won it by about 3 and a half points in 2016. In 2018 Katko was reelected 136,920 (52.6%) to 123,226 (47.4%). This year he outraised Balter $3,541,163 to $2,711,811, but the DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC kicked in a little over $5 million, about the same as the Republican committees.

Can A Blue Dog Party Switcher's Pledge Of Undying Loyalty To Trump Help Him Win Re-Election... In Atlantic City, Where Trump Destroyed The Economy?

 

New Jersey's second district is the only real swing district in the state. Obama won it it a tad over 53% both times he ran and then Trump beat Hillary there 50.6% to 46.0%. The district takes up the entire southern part of the state, including Atlantic City, although most of it suburban and rural. There are 8 counties and parts of counties, but most of the people live in just 4: Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Gloucester counties.

Frank LoBiondo, a mainstream Republican, was elected to the congressional seat in 1994 and finally retired in 2018 granting the DCCC their long-in-the-tooth and disastrous wish-- a run by the most conservative member of the New Jersey state legislature, NRA darling Jefferson Van Drew. He won but not by a huge margin-- 52.9% to 45.2%-- while losing Salem, Ocean, Camden and Burlington counties. And he spent $1,877,531 while his Republican opponent only managed to spend $299,475. Outside group spent another million-plus on bolstering Van Drew, while his GOP opponent was without allies in that department.

Now, of course, Van Drew is the Republican candidate and the Democrats snagged a moderate Democrat, Amy Kennedy. So far she's outspent him by around a million dollars-- $4,085,926 to $3,028,402 with Pelosi's superPAC kicking in another $5,275,471 and the DCCC $1,165,084 more. In all over $7 million in outside money has been spent on Kennedy's behalf while "just" $5.3 million has been spent by the GOP to defend Van Drew.





CNN reported this week that Van Drew's very public pledge of his "undying support" for Trump has not done him any good with independent voters, who ultimately decide who wins and who loses elections in NJ-02. Rebecca Buck wrote that last December, Van Drew "shocked his colleagues in the Democratic Party when he announced he would become a Republican," blaming the impeachment for his decision. His shocked colleagues would only have to know a little something about Blue Dogs-- dozens of whom have stabbed the party in the back and joined the GOP-- and Van Drew's very Republican voting record to have not been shocked. Just as they shouldn't be if others just like him-- Anthony Brindisi (NY) and Kendra Horn (OK) being prime examples-- when they hop the fence in a couple of years. Buck continued that "Van Drew's detractors point to a more craven political calculation: that he might not have been able to survive his Democratic primary."

The decision culminated in an Oval Office photo-op, where Van Drew pledged his "undying support" to the President. Camera shutters clicked as the two men vigorously shook hands. Eleven months later, those images are at the center of one of the hottest congressional races in the country, with Van Drew seeking reelection for the first time-- and, also for the first time, running as a Republican.

His GOP debut happens to coincide with a daunting year for his new party. But he says his transition is "going fine."

"What's really good about it is, I sort of feel liberated, in that I don't have somebody telling me what you can and can't vote for," Van Drew said, "and that's what really started all of it."

Van Drew's Democratic challenger, Amy Kennedy, is a former schoolteacher born and raised in South Jersey; she is also the wife of former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, a son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The race is only nominally between Kennedy and Van Drew, however. As in down-ballot contests across the country this year, Trump looms large here-- perhaps even more so because of the public embrace between Van Drew and the President.

"What's happening at the top of the ticket is really defining the down-ballot races," said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, which recently surveyed the race for New Jersey's Second Congressional District. "It's much, much harder this time around than it has been in the past to establish yourself as an independent voice."

A year ago, a close association with Trump might not have sounded like such a bad thing in South Jersey. The President won this district in 2016 by 5 points; in January, when Trump traveled there for a victory-lap rally with Van Drew, thousands of supporters lined up in the frigid cold. Van Drew, reminiscing on that night, recalled an atmosphere of such exuberance that a match "just would have self-lit."

But that was before Trump stumbled responding to a global pandemic, before millions of Americans lost their jobs, and before 2020 and the election took a sharp turn in another direction.

Now, Trump's endorsement might not be enough, if it's a net positive at all-- and as the President lags in the polls with Election Day nearing, Van Drew, a former mayor and state lawmaker, is trying to remind voters of his own brand, cultivated over two decades in public service, of an independent-minded politician unconcerned with party labels.

"I don't always agree with what the Republican Party is doing or even the President is doing. And the President knew that when I got involved," Van Drew said. "I vote independently. I'm the same Jeff Van Drew I always was."

If some at-risk Republican candidates are hedging their support for Trump, however, Van Drew insists he isn't one of them.

Indeed, Van Drew's campaign website still features a large banner photo of his Oval Office handshake, swallowing up most of the screen. Van Drew was a featured speaker during the Republican National Convention over the summer. And his campaign office windows plainly bear the signs of Van Drew 2.0: not only Van Drew's logo, printed on yard signs this year in a new shade of bright GOP red, but also Trump's. The Van Drew campaign shares the office with Trump's New Jersey operation.

"I don't run away from people," Van Drew said. "...I don't think, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, whether you always agree with the President or not, that you just betray him and walk away. I don't think that's the right thing to do."

Some Democratic voters who supported Van Drew two years ago believe that's exactly what he did to them, by switching parties just one year after they sent him to Washington.

"I felt betrayed actually, that he would do something like that," said David Burr, a Democratic voter who cast his ballot this year for Kennedy. "It just seemed like he wasn't thinking about me, he was thinking about remaining in office."

And it isn't just voters: party leaders, too, felt broadsided by Van Drew's decision. Just days before Van Drew's announcement, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer headlined a lunch reception for the congressman at a townhouse on Capitol Hill. There, according to Hoyer, he praised Van Drew for his party loyalty, despite hailing from a moderate district. Donors wrote checks for as much as $5,000 to Van Drew's reelection campaign; Hoyer, for his part, had already maxed out.

Many of the actual founders of the Blue Dog coalition found it expedient to quit the Democrats and become Republicans, like Nathan Deal (GA), Billy Tauzin (LA), Jimmy Hayes (LA), Michael Parker (MS), Gene Taylor (MS), Ralph Hall (TX), Pete Geren (TX), who came up with the term "Blue Dog," and Greg Laughlin (TX). In leaving the Democratic Party, Van Drew was staying true to what Blue Dogs generally do.

However, many of these Blue Dog party switchers lose subsequent elections (or even GOP primaries). Buck reported that "Van Drew claims to be 'the only person in all of American history who ever went from the majority party to the minority party,' and insists that others who have done it have been rewarded with chairmanships and greater political clout. But that's not true, even in recent political history." She cited Blue Dog scumbag Parker Griffith (AL) who became a Republican in 2009. Alabama Republicans weren't interested and defeated him in a primary.

For Van Drew, at least, a contested GOP primary wasn't an issue after Republicans rolled out the red carpet for him. Along with Trump's endorsement of Van Drew, the President's reelection committee immediately invested $250,000 in advertisements thanking the congressman for switching parties and supporting the President.

But if the GOP welcomed Van Drew with open arms, his district's voters might make another calculation.

"Van Drew has been successful his entire career setting himself up as not the typical politician, not somebody who's beholden to partisan interests," said Murray, of Monmouth. "Yet many voters view his party switch exactly in that vein, that it was an act of political self-preservation."

In a sense, it was. As Van Drew prepared to vote against impeaching the President last year, his campaign team shared with him an internal poll suggesting the stance would doom him in a Democratic primary. Switching to the GOP was hardly a guaranteed return ticket to Washington-- but at least it wouldn't be a certain political death sentence.

...The bigger issue for Van Drew, unquestionably, will be Trump-- and their alliance symbolized by the moment when Van Drew pledged his "undying support, always" to the President.

It was that moment, Kennedy says, that motivated her to run in the first place.

"I had no intention of running for office," Kennedy said. "But it was hearing those words, 'I pledge my undying support to you Mr. President, always,' that was when I felt like this is someone who is absolutely not there to look out for our best interests. And that compelled me to want to run."

Now that moment has become a symbol of the campaign-- and a headache for Van Drew, who like voters in his district has seen his sound bite played and replayed "over and over and over again," by his count, in attack ads this year.

During CNN's interview this week, we asked Van Drew if he regretted those words that have followed him around these months and might now cost him reelection.

"I think the words didn't explain as well what I exactly felt," Van Drew conceded. "It's not undying support that, whatever you say I'm going to do, or undying support, I agree with whatever you say. It was undying support for the presidency, for the idea of the greatness of America, for a friendship, but not necessarily that I'm going to agree with everything."

But it's unclear if will voters understand what he meant versus what he said.

"I think voters understand that when you're in the Oval Office and you're having a very exciting day and you're making a little piece of history," Van Drew said, "that sometimes we all say things."

A few minutes later, after our conversation had moved on, Van Drew stopped mid-sentence to rephrase something-- and then, recognizing the humor of it, he cut himself off again. Under his mask, he might have allowed a smile.

"See how your words can come out wrong?" he said, stabbing the air playfully, laying his Jersey accent on thick. "Well, I got a chance to fix it this time."

Kennedy isn't a Blue Dog, but has been endorsed by the New Dems, basically just as bad and more firmly tied to Wall Street. Progressives have no candidate to vote for Tuesday, though many are just going to hold their noses and vote for Kennedy to express their antipathy for Van Drew.

Any Blue Will Do? Screw That!

Thursday night during the debate Biden accidentally answered "yes" when asked if he favored closing down the oil industry. He had had a senior moment and he didn't mean that, explaining to journalists a short time later that "We’re not going to get rid of fossil fuels. We’re going to get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels." A step in the right direction. But two worthless, reactionary Blue Dogs-- Kendra Horn (OK) and Xochitl Torres Small (NM) immediately distanced themselves from his statement. [Note: the DCCC has already spent over $10,000,000 on these two worthless corporate shills, money that could have gone to electing actual Democrats.]

Blue Dogs and New Dems-- the pro-corporate Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- have shredded the Democratic Party's brand starting... when? When Bill Clinton embraced Wall Street in 1992? When Jimmy Carter was sworn in in 1977 or when JFK became president in 1961? When the conservatives in the party establishment forced FDR to remove Vice President Henry Wallace from the ticket in 1944?

Leaving the Senate aside, let's start with House incumbents. Over 100 of them have "F" grades from ProgressivePunch. 17 have voted more frequently with the GOP against progressive roll calls than with the Democrats! From terrible to worse:

• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)- 48.00% with the Democrats
• Conor Lamb (PA)- 47.33% with the Democrats
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- 44.44% with the Democrats
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- 44.27% with the Democrats
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 43.21% with the Dems
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)- 41.98% with the Dems
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- 41.25% with the Dems
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- 40.74% with the Dems
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)- 40.02% with the Dems
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- 39.11% with the Dems
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- 39.08% with the Dems
• Jared Golden (Blue Dog-ME)- 34.57% with the Dems
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 28.40% with the Dems
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- 28.40% with the Dems
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- 27.16% with the Dems
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 24.69% with the Dems
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 23.46% with the Dems

And in case anyone forgot the 2018 DCCC star recruit from New Jersey, Blue Dog shit-eater Jefferson Van Drew, he flipped to the GOP in the middle of the year and has a record of having voted 17.50% of the time with the Democrats.

Post-primary season, the Blue Dogs have 8 anti-worker/pro-corporate candidates they have endorsed. Under no circumstances should you support any of them, not with volunteer hours, not with campaign contributions, not even with votes:

• Eugene DePasquale (PA-10)
• Gretchen Driskell (MI-07)
• Margaret Good (FL-16)
• Jackie Gordon (NY-02)
• Christina Hale (IN-05)
• Josh Hicks (KY-06)
• Brynne Kennedy (CA-04)
• Sri Kulkarni (TX-22)

And the New Dems have 31 putrid candidates they are backing, each and every one of them having passed the test to prove they will make America worse. This is the list of the 31 candidates to be avoided-- unless you support the idea of corrupt, corporate governance:

• Alyse Galvin (I-AK)
• Hiral Tipirneni (AZ-06)
• Christy Smith (CA-25)
• Qualcomm heiress Sara Jacobs (CA-53)-- opposing progressive Democrat Georgette Gomez
• Margaret Good (FL-16)
• Carolyn Bourdeaux (GA-07)
• Betsy Dirksen Londrigan (IL-13)
• Christina Hale (IN-05)
• Hillary Scholten (MI-03)
• Dan Feehan (MN-01)
• Jill Schupp (MO-02)
• Deborah Ross (NC-02)
• Kathy Manning (NC-06)
• Pat Timmons Goodson (NC-08)
• Amy Kennedy (NJ-02)
• Nancy Goroff (NY-01)
• Jackie Gordon (NY-02)
• Kate Schroder (OH-01)
• Eugene DePasquale (PA-10)
• Wendy Davis (TX-21)
• Sri Kulkarni (TX-22)
• Gina Ortiz Jones (TX-23)
• Cameron Webb (VA-05)
• Carolyn Long (WA-03)
• Marilyn Strickland (WA-10)- opposing progressive Beth Doglio

(the New Dem "watch list")

• Ammar Campa-Najjar (CA-50)
• Kathleen Williams (MT)
• Desiree Tims (OH-10)
• Hillary O'Connor Mueri (OH-14)
• Christina Finello (PA-01)
• Sima Ladjevardian (TX-02)

I know half a dozen of these people personally. They all seem... nice. They just have strange idea about what a Democrat is. I've watched Congress long enough to know for sure that I wouldn't vote to put a single one of them in office. That's how toxic it is to be a member of the Blue Dogs or New Dems.

In the next 10 days the DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC will spend millions of dollars helping to elect these conservative candidates-- and not much helping progressives. (The ones in blue are the progressives.) These are the candidates that these groups had spent the most (over a million) on before this weekend:

• Rep Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- $7,866,938
• Christy Smith- $7,728,919 Includes the spending in the special election she lost)
• Rep Max Rose (Blue Dog-NY)- $7,621,687
• Rita Hart (IA-02)- $5,896,987
• Sri Kulkarni- $5,749,664
• Rep TJ Cox (New Dem-CA)- $5,320,109
• Carolyn Bourdeaux- $5,126,518
• Rep Xochitl Torres Small- $4,988,768
• Rep Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)- $4,978,578
• Amy Kennedy- $4,830,590
• Candace Valenzuela- $4,533,197
• Rep Anthony Brindisi- $4,396,328
• Kate Schroder (OH-01)- $4,371,004
• Rep Kendra Horn- $4,165,196
• Rep Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $4,155,685
• Dana Balter (NY-24)- $4,131,598
• Rep Ben McAdams- $4,068,280
• Rep Andy Kim (NJ)- $3,973,965
• Jackie Gordon- $3,649,928
• Kara Eastman (NE)- $3,510,587
• Betsy Dirksen Londrigan- $3,500,820
• Gina Ortiz Jones- $3,464,091
• Dan Feehan- $3,437,352
• Jill Schupp- $3,434,612
• Rep Joe Cunningham- $3,354695
• Hiral Tipirneni- $3,383,888
• Eugene DePasquale- $3,188,406
• wealthy socialite Rep Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- $3,056,114
• Rep Abby Finkenauer- $3,003,170
• Rep Abigail Spanberger- $2,876,863
• Kristina Hale- $2,839,768
• Wendy Davis- $2,818,222
• Kathleen Williams- $2,729,430
• Rep Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)- $2,310,273
• Rep Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)- $2,227,113
• rich lottery winner Rep Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)- $2,192,622
• Hillary Scholten- $1,985,694
• Rep Cindy Axne- $1,911,390
• Christina Finello (PA-01)- $1,686,457
• Nancy Goroff- $1,641,713
• Rep Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- $1,563,736
• Diane Mitsch Bush- $1,525,481
• Rep Elaine Luria- $1,336,672
• Rep Pete DeFazio (OR)- $1,287,300
• Joyce Elliott (AR-02)- $1,173,133
• Cameron Webb- $1,073,021
• Rep Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)- $1,054,635

So many millions of dollars wasted on worthless incumbents who no one likes! And spending on progressives who really need the money-- next to nothing other than for Kara Eastman, Joyce Elliott and Dana Balter. What about Jon Hoadley, Mike Siegel, Julie Oliver, Audrey Denney, Nate McMurray, Adam Christensen, Liam O'Mara to name a few. "Too progressive for the district" is what the DCCC always says (off the record).

I spoke to Liam O'Mara, a professor of the history of ideas, who is also a candidate running in Riverside County's CA-42-- with no recognition from the DCCC whatsoever. "The idea that I am 'too progressive for the district' is rubbish," he told me yesterday. "The most progressive prior candidate out here also happens to have done the best against Calvert. We currently have the best early return rate of any Democrat in recent memory, and that follows a primary cycle that saw more votes to the Dems than any previous primary in ages. Right now FiveThirtyEight gives my campaign a better chance of flipping the district than they've seen yet, and a higher chance of flipping the seat than quite a few candidates in the long lists above. Progressive-populist leaders used to dominate in the most socially conservative corners of the country, because more people vote their wallets and their hopes than anything else. To say that we are out of touch with the needs and wishes of the electorate is to surrender preëmptively to Republican control and Republican arguments... when what we ought to be doing is standing out there and winning over hearts and minds. The Democratic party needs to stop focussing on safely blue seats and start trying to win people over... and we can't do that with tepid, half-baked conservatism."

Let me make a suggestion: click on the 2020 ActBlue congressional thermometer above and show Liam O'Mara some love. Unlike most of the DCCC candidates, he would actually make Congress a better and more productive place.

The Anti-Trump Wave Election Will Save All The Blue Dogs... Who Will Then Drown In Their Own Hubris In 2022

A wave election shouldn't be that hard to understand. This one is easier than most: voters hate Trump and his enablers and want to defeat them. It has nothing much to do with the lesser evil party. Relatively few people are voting for Biden; everyone is voting against Trump-- and his enablers. Biden wasn't the worst Democrat in the primary; Bloomberg was. But Biden was a close second worst. Almost all the Senate candidates that Schumer picked are really bad-- not so-so, the way Sara Gideon (ME) and Steve Bullock (MT) are... really, really bad who will accelerate the degeneration of the Democratic Party into an enemy of the people instead of a vehicle for the legitimate interests of working families. Same in the House... the DCCC recruits are all terrible. Almost all-- and their are just a tiny few-- of the good candidates the DCCC is backing are the few in legitimate pick-up seats who beat DCCC-preferred primary opponents.

And in a wave election, all ships rise as the wave comes in. In the Senate races, crap Democrats like Frackenlooper (CO), Greenfield (IA), Kelly (AZ), and Cunningham (NC) win. And if the wave is big enough, so do Jaime Harrison (SC), Jon Ossoff (GA), Barbara Bollier (KS)... If things going really badly for Republicans between now and November 3, even Cornyn (TX), McConnell (KY) and Capito (WV) could be unseated.

It isn't any different in the House. There's a worthless right-wing coke freak running as a Democrat in Texas; he can win. The DCCC set up dozens of putrid Blue Dogs and New Dems and many will be swept into office by a wave that has nothing to do with Democrats; it's an anti-Trump/anti-red wave. That wave will also protect worthless Democratic incumbents who deserve to lose. Yesterday, Politico ran a piece by Ally Mutnick, The outlook for House Republicans keeps getting worse which focused on 7 of the worst Democrats in Congress, Blue Dogs Kendra Horn (OK), Joe Cunningham (SC), Max Rose (NY), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Anthony Brindisi (NY), Ben McAdams (UT) and Abigail Spanberger (UT). Each has an "F" rank from ProgressivePunch. These are their lifetime crucial vote scores-- from bad to worst:

• Max Rose- 55.56%
• Xochitl Torres Small- 43.21%
• Abigail Spanberger- 28.40%
• Kendra Horn- 28.40%
• Ben McAdams- 27.16
• Anthony Brindisi- 24.69%
• Joe Cunningham- 23.46%

Without any of that context, Mutnick wrote about these 7 from the perspective of how the GOP isn't able to beat them. I agree; they'll all win-- and then all lose in 2022. "Here’s how grim things look for House Republicans," she wrote, "three weeks out from the election: They’re struggling to win back seats even in conservative bastions like Oklahoma and South Carolina, where Democrats staged shocking upsets in 2018." Yes, that's because it isn't about the 7 horrible excuses for Democrats. It's about Donald.

But that's too simple. It must be more complicated than that, right?

Their success stems from Democrats’ massive fundraising advantage as well as some Republican recruitment struggles. And in a few places, Trump has become so toxic that he’s dragging down GOP candidates where he was once overwhelmingly popular.

“They continue to run rubber stamps for the president,” Cunningham said in a recent interview outside the Capitol. “Even though the district is more conservative, it doesn’t want a rubber stamp for the president.”

Privately, Republicans concede their chances of reclaiming Cunningham's coastal South Carolina district are dimming. He's leading Republican Nancy Mace by a staggering 13 points, 55 percent to 42 percent, according to an early October poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for the independent-expenditure arm of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and shared with Politico. And he has even managed to outflank Mace on the right, warning she will raise taxes 23 percent on prescription drugs and groceries.

Trump won the seat by 13 points in 2016. But he is polling significantly lower now. "It’s definitely not the margin that he had last time against Hillary," Cunningham said.

Not only are Republicans struggling to pick off Cunningham-- a sign they have little chance of reclaiming the majority-- but a few Democrats even believe there’s a slim possibility they don’t lose any incumbents next month.

House GOP super PACs have reserved and spent millions into these seats, trying to keep pace with well-funded Democratic incumbents-- in some cases, without much movement in the polls. Republicans' 2020 argument was that President Donald Trump would be a boon to their prospects in flipping the 30 Democratic-held districts he carried in 2016. In reality, they are seriously contesting perhaps a dozen of them, and Democrats could even expand their majority.

Could??? Planet earth to whoever wrote that. I would like to bet that person any amount of money that the Democrats will significantly expand their majority-- courtesy of The Donald-- in 3 weeks. As for not losing a single seat. That, alas, is probably true. Even a stinking sack of garbage like Anthony Brindisi will probably win again and immediately get busy in Congress trying to make sure nothing remotely progressive comes forward from the House Dems-- guaranteeing a massive loss of seats in 2022, including, thankfully, his own. "Some Republican strategists," wrote Mutnick, "believe their best chance to oust a freshman is in upstate New York, where Brindisi faces a rematch with former GOP Rep. Claudia Tenney. In a district that Trump carried by 16 points, Brindisi has tried to focus on local issues, including his work to secure contracts for a manufacturing company in the district and to crack down on Spectrum, the much-hated cable company in the region." The NRCC and McCarthy's SuperPAC have spent $8.4 million on Tenney's behalf. I don't have the up-to-date DCCC numbers, but as of last month they had spent about $3 million bolstering Brindisi-- what a horrifying waste of money!

As of mid-October, national Republicans are playing more defense than offense, airing TV ads in 28 GOP-held districts compared to 25 Democratic-held ones, according to a Politico analysis of data from Advertising Analytics, a TV tracking firm.

“We’re able to flip the tables and focus on expanding the map. And I do think that that’s a shift,” said Abby Curran Horrell, the executive director of House Majority PAC, Democrats' main House super PAC. "They are tied down in districts that I think they expected that they would be able to win easily. But it is not that type of year."

...One bright spot for the GOP lies in Western Minnesota, where longtime Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, facing massive headwinds, has slipped in some private polling. The GOP recruit, former Lt. Gov. Michelle Fischbach, is well-funded and plans to ride Trump's coattails in a seat he won by 31 points.

Ironically, Democrats are growing increasingly nervous about two members in seats that Clinton won by double digits in 2016: Rep. TJ Cox in California's Central Valley and Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in South Florida.

In the closing weeks, national Republicans have begun to hone in on crime, warning in countless ads that Democrats plan to "defund the police." And they are most optimistic about this line of attack in the Staten Island-based district with a heavy law-enforcement presence, where Rose is locked in a tight race with state Assemblymember Nicole Malliotakis.

In most well-educated suburban districts, Trump is proving just as burdensome as he was in the 2018 midterms. In Oklahoma's 5th District, Horn shocked the political world by upsetting an unprepared incumbent. Trump won the seat by 13 points, but some private polling now indicates a tight presidential contest there.

It's still a top pickup opportunity for Republicans. But they don't have a clear lead yet, despite millions in outside spending and a more compelling and well-funded nominee in state Sen. Stephanie Bice.

"If we don’t win Congressional District 5, there’s probably a lot of other places we don’t win," said Chad Alexander, a former Oklahoma state GOP chair. "So that would be a very bad night for Republicans."

Count on it.

When Push Comes To Shove, What Do Blue Dogs Do? They Pull Off Their Masks And Show The World What They Always Are: Republicans

 

Two of the members of Congress I respect most, Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) are in safe blue districts and have been working their asses off to elect other Democrats to Congress. Sometimes, it drives me crazy, though, that they are working to elect all Democrats-- from complete garbage like Oklahoma Blue Dog Kendra Horn to the top progressive challengers across the country. I had a good discussion with Ted about it but he was unshakable in his determination to elect more Democrats. Period.

To my mind, his argument is undercut, though, when conservative Democrats are seen to only help other conservative Democrats and not progressives. Progressives like Ted and Jamie are raising millions of dollars for Blue Dogs and New Dems-- as well as for progressives-- but Blue Dogs and New Dems? Let's go take a look at one of the most-- if not the most-- crucial congressional race anywhere in America: Omaha, Nebraska.

NE-02-- Omaha and the rest of Douglas County plus most of red-leaning, rural Sarpy County-- is a swing district that elects one member of Congress, just like every other district. However, NE-02, also awards an electoral vote to a presidential candidate (as does another swing district, ME-02). That's why the district is so incredibly important. Kara Eastman, a community activist and organizer, won a tough primary against an establishment candidate married to a former congressman, Blue Dog, Brad Ashford, who was beaten in 2018 by Eastman in a bitter primary. In part because of the tireless and effective organizing on behalf of Democrats up and down the ticket, both she and Biden, who is not making any efforts in Nebraska, are leading in the district. Kara is delivering him an electoral college vote.

On Wednesday evening, she beat the Trump-enabling incumbent, Don Bacon, in a debate. Moments before the debate-- in a coordinated effort by the Bacon campaign-- party-jumper Ashford-- who had already endorsed Kara-- switched his endorsement to the Republican.

That's what Blue Dogs do. I wouldn't expect Cheri Bustos, DCCC Chair and a Blue Dog herself, to care, but I would hope Ted and Jamie would take that into consideration when they help elect Blue Dog candidates. There are several Republicans running as Democrats this cycle-- just as Ashford had-- and all are possible party-jumpers like Jeff Van Drew, a New Jersey ultra-conservative who flipped into Trumpism and officially joined the GOP after voting with them for a year.

When Ashford was in Congress, he was generally considered one of the 2 or 3 most right-wing Democrats in the House and was always looking for opportunities to stab the Democrats in the back, just the way he did to Kara on Wednesday night.

Ashford first won the seat in 2014, narrowly beating GOP incumbent Terry Lee, even though he only raised $1,231,958 to Lee's $3,106,288. How did he manage that? The DCCC and Pelosi's House Majority PAC spent a little over $1.5 million slamming Lee and bolstering Ashford. One term of the conservative Ashford was more than enough for Omaha Democrats, who refused to back him again. That's when he lost to Bacon, even though he spent a million dollars more than Bacon and even though the DCCC spent $2,688,673 on his behalf, while Pelosi's SuperPAC threw in another $741,041. So... almost $3.5 million wasted trying to save the seat of a pretend-Democrat who voted with the GOP and who was hated by his own constituents! That's the DCCC!

The following year, Ashford wanted to try again, but despite backing from the DCCC, Democratic voters weren't having anything to do with him and Kara defeated him in the primary-- at which point the DCCC basically pulled out of the race and signaled to the Republicans that the district was all their's. The GOP spent a massive $1.3 million smearing Kara and another $700,000 advertising how amazingly wonderful Bacon was. The DCCC spent a ritual $90,000 on Kara before telling donors and the media that she couldn't win. And by the way, you can contribute to Kara's campaign by clicking on the thermometer on the right. Bacon defeated Kara by less than 1 percentage point despite his mammoth financial edge.

This cycle, Ashford sent his wife in to run in his place. Kara beat her in a humiliating two to one landslide. She has kept up with Bacon on spending so far-- having spent $1,132,014 to his $1,239,832. But he has twice what she does in the bank for the final push and the GOP has spent $1,958,987 on ads calling her a communist and another $1,216,895 boosting Bacon. The DCCC and Pelosi's SuperPAC have spent $1.2 million helping Kara, much less than they've spent on right-wing Blue Dogs and corporately owned New Dems. One of the most far right Democrats in the House-- hated by his normal Democratic colleagues, many of whom hope he loses-- is Anthony Brindisi, who votes with the GOP as much as Ashford used to. The DCCC has spent $2,025,213 on his race. Pelosi's SuperPAC threw in another $632,150 and the Blue Dog PAC kicked in $473,272. Or compare the $1.2 million the DCCC and Pelosi have spent on Kara to the $2,736,430 the DCCC alone had spent on conservative New Dem candidate Carolyn Bourdeaux so far.

Biden Isn't The Only Conservative Democrat Being Embraced By Republicans-- The Chamber Of Commerce Just Pulled The Trigger For Lots Of Blue Dogs And New Dems

Last week, we noted that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was preparing-- with some partisan pushback from the GOP Establishment-- to endorse a gaggle of freshmen Democrats who have records of being sufficiently anti-working class congressional Democrats and who, generally, are part of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. And now they have now so: 23 Democratic freshmen and 29 Republican freshmen-- all representing the interests of Wall Street and anti-family, corporate governance. Trump-Republican Eric Esshaki-- a sore loser, pissed off that he didn't get the Chamber's endorsement for Michigan's 11th congressional district-- summed it up well when his New Dem opponent Haley Stevens was endorsed. Esshaki dismissed the Chamber as "the swamp lobbyists swimming with Haley Stevens" and said that "Congresswoman Stevens being endorsed by another set of lobbyists in Washington, D.C., is not news. These lobbyists care about backroom deals with Nancy Pelosi. Every lobbyist knows Stevens blindly follows the Nancy Pelosi agenda. Haley Stevens is bad for jobs, bad for working families and bad for health care."

Trump won MI-11 in 2016-- 49.7% to 45.3%-- but in 2018, Stevens beat millionaire self-funder Republican Lena Epstein, who had been endorsed by the Chamber, 181,912 (51.8%) to 158,463 (45.2%), winning in both the Wayne and Oakland counties parts of the suburban Detroit district. Epstein had put $1,168,790 of her own money into the race and spent $2,636,898 in all. Stevens was able to out-raise her significantly and spent $4,149,627. The DCCC and it's allies spent around $5.8 million bolstering Stevens and GOP groups only ponied up about $1.3 for Epstein. So far this cycle Stevens has raised $3,858,939 to Esshaki's $418,369, $100,000 of which was self-funded and most of which he has already spent in an ugly primary battle. It doesn't look like any significant outside money will be spent in MI-11 this cycle and that Stevens will breeze to reelection.

These are the 23 Democratic freshmen who have been endorsed by the Chamber-- each with their progressive punch first year grade next to their name:

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- F
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- F
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)- F
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- F
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- F
• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)- F
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)- F
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)- F
• Andy Kim (NJ)- F
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- F
• Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX)- F
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- F
• Antonio Delgado (New Dem-NY)- F
• Greg Stanton (New Dem-AZ)- D
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- F
• TJ Cox (New Dem-CA)- F
• Harley Rouda (New Dem-CA)- F
• Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS)- F
• David Trone (New Dem-MD)- F
• Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI)- F
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- F
• ean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- F
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- F

The 5 Democrats with the very worse voting records in Congress-- all Blue Dogs-- are also all Chamber of Commerce endorsees. Here's the list, from horrible to worst and the percentage next to each name indicates how often they have voted for anything even vaguely progressive:

• Kendra Horn (OK)- 29.11%
• Abigail Spanberger (VA)- 29.11%
• Ben McAdams (UT)- 27.85%
• Anthony Brindisi (NY)- 25.32%
• Joe Cunningham (SC)- 24.05%

For comparison's sake, there are only 8 freshmen with "A" grades, Andy Levin (100%), Joe Neguse (97.47%), Ayanna Pressley (96.20%), Chuy Garcia (94.94%), AOC (94.94%), Rashida Tlaib (94.94%). Lori Trahan (93.67%) and Ilhan Omar (92.41%). Needless to say, the Chamber certainly didn't consider endorsing any of them. In fact, this cycle the Chamber has spent 6-figure amounts against AOC, as well as $200,000 to bolster Blue Dog Henry Cuellar against progressive primary opponent Jessica Cisneros.

The Chamber had endorsed and spent money for Blue Dogs and New Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party before, but it's odd this time seeing them working to elect Democrats who they worked hard against in 2018. For example, now they're all for conservative Democrat Sharice Davids but they spent $200,000 against her just two years ago. This year they love conservative Democrat Joe Cunningham; last cycle they endorsed Republican fringe nut Katie Arrington against him. In California's Central Valley, there is a re-match between incumbent TJ Cox and former incumbent David Valadao. In 2018, the Chamber was all for Valadao. This cycle they're backing Cox. On receiving their endorsement, Cox boasted about how frequently he votes with the Republicans against the working class. "Small businesses are the backbone of our Central Valley communities and the work our local Chambers of Commerce have done to help keep Main Street weather the storm of this year is nothing short of a lifesaver,” Cox said of his new best friends. "As a businessman myself, I’m proud to work with anyone and every one to deliver for the Central Valley, which is why I have backed pro-small business legislation that supports shared prosperity through good-paying jobs, even bucking my own party to get results."

A scumbag like Cox knows he can count of Democrats to vote blindly for the "D" next to his name, regardless of his shitty voting record and irrespective of his Republican-orientation when it comes to policy. The Fresno Bee also reversed positions. Having backed Cox in 2018, they have now endorsed Valadao, primarily, they wrote, because of his unscrupulous business dealings: "Not paying workers their wages. Not paying taxes. And, with the razor-thin victory two years ago, not a mandate for Cox to represent the 21st."

The Fox channel in Oklahoma City seemed delighted for their favorite conservative congresswoman. "Earlier this year, Congresswoman Kendra Horn received the Chamber’s highest bipartisanship score among the Oklahoma congressional delegation. Congresswoman Horn ranks higher with the U.S. Chamber for her legislative record than Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe, Senator Lankford, Congressman Hern, and Congressman Mullin."

Horn, who beat an unfunded progressive Democrat in the primary said she is "honored to have the endorsement of the U.S. Chamber because it means I’ve delivered on my promise to bring both parties together in support of Oklahoma’s businesses and economic opportunity in our state. I fought to save small businesses during the pandemic and hosted a job fair to connect Oklahomans with dozens of local employers. In Congress, I work with business and industry leaders from aerospace to health care to oil and gas to support our diverse economy. My support for pro-growth policies, like USMCA, set our businesses, workers, and families up for success. We don’t have to choose between policies that are good for our people and policies that are good for our pocketbooks."

If you'd like to support candidates for Congress who have not ever been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce-- or any other Republican front groups-- I've included a thermometer on the right that goes to the Blue America Act Blue page with Democratic congressional candidates whose agendas are in the best interests of working families in their districts, like, for example, Cathy Kunkel in West Virginia. "In our campaign," she told me yesterday, "we are unapologetically for working class West Virginians: Medicare for All universal healthcare, negotiating to bring down prescription drug prices, $15/hour minimum wage and more. We support cutting the military budget and forcing wealthy corporations to pay their fair share in taxes so that we can invest in healthcare, education and infrastructure to combat poverty here at home. Our campaign is not taking any corporate PAC dollars exactly because I'm not going to be the kind of politician who goes to DC and immediately sells out their constituents to wealthy campaign donors."